From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:13:45 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Enhance /dev/mem to allow read/write of arbitrary
Message-Id: <20110701161345.GA29775@elte.hu>
List-Id: <linux-sh.vger.kernel.org>
References: <201106171038.25988.ptesarik@suse.cz>
	<20110701144129.GA10052@infradead.org>
	<20110701144641.GA23272@elte.hu>
	<201107011654.06651.ptesarik@suse.cz>
	<20110701153634.GA27407@elte.hu> <4E0DEF2C.3040504@zytor.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E0DEF2C.3040504@zytor.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org


* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:

> On 07/01/2011 08:36 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > So we could kill multiple birds with the same stone here:
> > 
> >  - remove various ugly uses of /dev/mem (including the rootkit usage),
> >    with or without strict-devmem
> > 
> >  - extending it to above-4G for inspection purposes
> > 
> >  - allowing to kill /dev/mem access runtime similar to the 
> >    disable_modules lock-down killswitch, for the so inclined.
> > 
> > Would you be interested in modifying your patch-set in such a 
> > fashion?
> > 
> 
> There is another use that I have looked at, as well: for testing 
> purposes, it would be extremely good to be able to dirty and/or 
> flush an arbitrary physical cache line for testing purposes.
> 
> This is very very similar to /dev/mem usage -- access to an 
> arbitrary chunk of memory -- and a fully enabled /dev/mem can of 
> course support this use (just mmap the page with the relevant cache 
> line).  However, it could also be a separate device which could 
> have looser permissions than /dev/mem; or a set of ioctls on 
> /dev/mem with a separate kill switch, because no data would ever be 
> have modified or returned to user space.
> 
> Either way, though, we found that it would share a lot of code with 
> the /dev/mem implementation, and as such fixing up the underlying 
> machinery is the sanest way to upstream this.

To me that cache flush thing sounds obscure (but still useful) enough 
to justify a new ioctl over /dev/mem.

Not sure it even needs a killswitch, unless there's some real 
security problem related to it.

Thanks,

	Ingo